<![CDATA[Purpose – This study examines whether two existing Sharia capital-market instruments, Sharia RDPT and Sharia DIRE, can finance development on unproductive waqf land, and which of them stakeholders judge more suitable. Design – A two-stage sequential expert-based design. Ten experts (regulators, academics, practitioners, nazhir and investors) validated a five-cluster, twenty-four-element framework through a one-round, modified-Delphi content-validity assessment using Lawshe’s Content Validity Ratio; seven of them then completed Saaty-scale pairwise comparisons, aggregated by geometric mean, tested at CR ≤ 0.10 and synthesised through the limit supermatrix. Findings – Twenty-two elements were valid (CVI = 1.00); the two rejected elements both concerned specific regulation and were rejected mainly by regulator panelists, marking a regulatory perception gap. Stakeholders ranked first among clusters (25.23 per cent), and three separately judged clusters converged on the nazhir: low nazhir professionalism (33.02 per cent), nazhir capacity building (27.48 per cent) and the nazhir as stakeholder (22.37 per cent). The panel judged RDPT more suitable than DIRE (68.16 versus 31.84 per cent; 65.05 versus 34.95 per cent in the limit supermatrix), with RDPT favoured on 19 of 20 elements. Research Implications – The evidence is ex ante and consists of aggregated expert priorities, not population estimates; the welfare specification and the implementation sequence are the authors’ translation of those priorities. The panel is small and Jakarta-based; replication is needed. Originality – To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to compare the two instruments within a single waqf-land financing framework and to validate the content of an ANP framework before weighting, so that elements not recognised as relevant are separated from elements that are merely weighted low.]]>
